Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Tue, 09 December 2014 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E0011A8A66 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:55:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EVdVQdYp1XIr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:55:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA5FD1A710C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:55:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n3so8723772wiv.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:55:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5hLju6aoM6RsGtCWqg+f4y/xnI2hZVDU5P+F3CSTtQA=; b=oEtJ8zB2ZO/CUMK9/ZxXGJ3mZ7e6imIYtAfh2I/BN+dezUIQTlCbKTSeKIQqyGwE2B w95icKt9bMQ1HNech4ymtl4z8yc+FZTe1jAfz+wc9a394KQRRlUxfJ3UsIcd7HXlk4qv lyuHOYa/K+kIE+ZJFKo/May8t8FbO0vcq2XnyGGbv0gHZfFzpBAeSxn6MXHt3jfAnRgS LDpAKr3xJ4c6NpZIF0d3eTQS+wXlrAkuzk0CBzqzX3DZfpXf7zoP/TOM3SHKnOCvFMEo /sBXZOv1UlQGCunkp8XUx37nDOYZ8ECp9VwXBFr0+6xCzd3QGIWJL5QE+rXMzAO6TpZk A4PA==
X-Received: by 10.180.77.79 with SMTP id q15mr34038082wiw.8.1418147744582; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:55:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.37] (136.Red-81-39-109.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [81.39.109.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wx3sm2669020wjc.19.2014.12.09.09.55.43 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5487379E.2090406@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 18:55:42 +0100
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <5486C48D.8040602@alvestrand.no> <F092E8C6-380C-4B20-B71F-449162617BC5@apple.com> <5487331F.8050404@bbs.darktech.org> <5487353D.8030106@gmail.com> <548736AC.6000407@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <548736AC.6000407@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/bQmrweQwVlHnIPgZSMwm-V3o9yo
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codecs: Clear positions....
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:55:50 -0000

On 09/12/2014 18:51, cowwoc wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 12:45 PM, Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote:
>> On 09/12/2014 18:36, cowwoc wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2014 12:32 PM, David Singer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would also like to know from those confirming the sense of the 
>>>> room, whether THEY THEMSELVES intend to implement both codecs, or 
>>>> whether they conveniently think they don’t need to, and it’s just a 
>>>> problem for other people to handle.
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, a +1 for “those other people should do it” is meaningless.
>>>
>>> That's a fair point. I'm guessing the vast majority of people 
>>> answering on the mailing list only plan to implement one codec 
>>> because they are non-browser implementors.
>>
>> No, that's not a fair point. I don't see most of the people making 
>> taking decisions on other topics (SDP, FEC,  DTLS, CC, 
>> SVC/Simulcasting/Multicasting, Plan A/PlanB/No plan) implementing 
>> them themselves. So if this going to be the rule about 
>> who-can-vote-what we should redefine the whole IETF process.
>>
>> Everyone should be aware of what are they voting and what is the 
>> amount of burden/costs it requires to be implemented, and see how 
>> that will contribute to the success/failure of webrtc and vote 
>> accordingly. Not just in this topic, but in any topic.
>
> Sergio,
>
> I think this warrants a discussion. It might not be very politically 
> correct to say so, but I support the idea that only those who are 
> implicated should have a say. The alternative leads to armchair 
> politics and bikeshedding.

Indeed. I could be in favor of that, but not about changing the rules in 
the middle of the game just because some don't like the result so far.

BR
Sergio